Sign in to follow this  
Geofa

FS 2004 files...I'm amazed!

Recommended Posts

I've been using FSX since the day it came out. I've used every version of FS for the past 14 years or so. I'm still amazed as to how long FS2004 is "hanging on". I don't remember this slow a transition to a new FS EVER! I know many have issues with FSX's frames and demands, but honestly, I wouldn't go back for anything. The scenery, the flight dynamics, the traffic, and the overall experience with FSX, for me, is a beauty to behold. Yes, I've had tweaking and various problems, but with many on this forum and others, we work together to move into the future of flight simulation. We HAVE to! We can never get to "as real as it gets" unless we all work together. But who am I to say? If 2004 rocks your boat, then continue with it. I've just never seen such a reluctance to get to the next level. I would love to have the power of so many simmers who are still on the FS2004 bandwagon working with us to make the new FSX better. Again, I'm not judging anyone, but I am truly amazed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Three issues Stan. Hardware requirements, issues with both RTM and SP1, and Vista/DX10. I've never doubted that a significant percentage of "the community" (which is probably no more that 5% of the total users) don't care all that much about added eye-candy, or are tired of upgrading hardware while chasing the Framerate Grail, or aren't going to jump on the Vista/DX10 bandwagon any time soon (or any combination of these factors). I'm not amazed at all. Not even surprised. I wonder how Joe Average and the kids are doing......Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just about as much reluctance as people with XP to transition to Vista. If it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality. I mean XP and FS2004 run hellava lot better than my FSX and Vista.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wellllll..Yes and no.I also have had FS since the old 5" floppy days. Afraid I have lost track of the years, but I know I beat you. I have lived in my present location for 17 years and had FS for quite some time before that in Houston.I agree that FSX has much to offer, but has had more liabilities than any other version to date as well. I have been fortunate enough to miss some of them, like activation problems. At this stage, I still see potential and promise more than I do present reality.Just now, the cream is making its first appearance IMHO. (i.e. iFly 747-400, LDS767, Ultimate Traffic, Ultimate Terrain etc.etc.) Relatively speaking, we still have a long way to go. I still fly FS9 as well thanks to an appetite for the Eaglesoft Citation X, Gulfsteam V, Dassault Falcon, and others, probably most of all, FSNAV. I still use FSNAV to originate most of my flighplans, including for FSX the hard way.In addition, the growing pains for FSX have been gigantic IMHO. I will conclude my post on starting over shortly thanks primarily to blurries. You may or may not want to take a peek at it.Concerning Vista and DX10. I doubt that I will ever purchase Vista. If I do, it will be only for FlightSin purposes after testimony of great things it does for the program (which I doubt). Whether DX10 will have any application for XPPro is still somewhat doubtful I assume, but I am hoping. In any case, it will take a bit of convincing before I go that route, particularly as many hardware manufacturers have stated that they WILL NOT upgrade drivers for Vista. No way am I going to ditch my present Laser printers and Scanner and buy new ones just for Vista.To each his own. I fly FSX, but I will also continue to fly FS9, probably for some time to come. I am not surprised at all relative to the slow evolution. In fact, I have regressed some thanks to frustration. I'll bet I am not alone.Respectfully:RTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will see the majority convert over in the first 6 months of 2008. By this time we will have SP2 for FSX, SP1 for Vista, new generation of processors from Intel & AMD and I am guessing a number of significant addon releases as well(PMDG, SSTSIM, etc.). Hopefully all of this gets the performance to an acceptable level so we can put the transition issues behind us and get on with flying. Personally I am in this camp...no point in upgrading hardware only to have marginal results and have to do it all over again. I am happy to wait it out with a perfectly functional FS9 until the dust settles.Mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>who are still on the FS2004 bandwagon working with us to make>the new FSX better. >>Again, I'm not judging anyone, but I am truly amazed!>> Yep indeed the choice of sim is FSX as main sim far better in all ariasbut still waiting for the addon stuff to catchup mainly addon airports and aircraft...Cheers,Andr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arias? Yeah, FSX sure is good if you want to improve your vocal abilities. Especially concerning the art of cursing. ;-pOh wait, also if you want to practice songs like, "Why do birds suddenly appear"... ;-DFar better in all areas? That's a whole nother story. Frankly, FS2004 is not hanging on, it's here to stay for quite a while yet. Personally speaking, at least until FSXI. But it would have to be real improvement, not just the superficial stuff... (Although there is a bit more to FSX, but not too much.)It's not hardware, Vista, DX10. People have spent hundreds if not thousands on computers and add-ons. Some part with that like that, others have had it with that whole process (not just flight simming, but Vista as well, I mean, XP works fine, doesn't it?). And there's just not one good reason in FSX for me to upgrade. But that is just me, although I have an inkling that it isn't just me.If anything, I think there's a bit of a migration back to FS9. I'm amazed at how many downloads some of my files get. Such as this one, I mean, come one... ;-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reluctantly converted to FSX but my 2ghz AMD was too marginal. I was not going to spend lots of money now for more hardware with more changes to FSX on the horizon. So I took a cheapy route and bought a motherboard that allowed me to use the new Core2Duo and still retain my AGP and DDR ram (ASrock 4VSTA $70). The processor value curve seemed to have a good peak with the e4400 2ghz CPU($134). I modestly over-clocked to 2.6 ghz. No, it does not give me water-cooled Quad performance in FSX. However, I can now add dense Autogen and still have 24fps. If I reduce the Autogen I can use some AI as well. Customers of Microsoft had to spend lots of money to come close to a satisfactory sliders right system. However, it did not end there when they are faced with buying a new OS (vista) to go to the next level. To get to that level many will be forced to buy a new video card. Perhaps more ram and a new motherboard will be needed. Then a new power supply may be on the credit card as well. Once at this new DX10 vista level will the customer be at the end. Who knows. I would not put the credit card back in the wallet. FSX was poorly conceived when Microsoft forced the programmers to extend the software well beyond the PCs of many potential customers. I am sure they would have liked to have produced a full featured but far more "gentle" program. FSX is a little debacle but Vista is a big one. Unfortunately, FS customers are faced with both.Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I think most people do not believe FSX to be a step forward like the original poster seems so convinced about. FS2004 will hang on for a long, long time and I think FSX will be leapfrogged. Microsoft seemed to think FS9 was a dead horse. They were obviously wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX is,well boring.I deleted fs9 along with $1000 in addons.Custom built a computer,$$ was no object.And other than looking at Active Skys pretty clouds and watching cars run around like they are driven by the Tree Stooges, Im BORED.Unless contantly tweeking is what you find as enjoyment, theres not a lot to do.Ohh yeah, the scripted missions. ooooooHHHHHH.Theres no headroom in this sim to do anything.I currently use FSX for my helicopter sim. PERIOD.There is just SO MUCH MORE available for FS9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys-can we keep this from turning into another of "those" threads?There are people here who obviously enjoy fsx and don't use fs2004 anymore(myself included) , and there are those who do not.That is why we have a fsx forum and a fs2004 forum.I don't think it is necessary to rehash the reasons those who enjoy it do, and the reasons those who don't enjoy it don't.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Microsoft seemed to think FS9 was a dead horse. They were>obviously wrong. >>What would make you think that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep transition has been slow. FS9 is still king of commercial flying right now with me. High AI, payware airports, FSNavigator, UT, payware commercial planes with good framerates, etc. - it's still a winning combination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was using FS9 and FSX 50 : 50 But post SP1, I am using FSX less and less. The tension and blood pressure I get when I see blurries, I can't stand it. I feel like throwing my PC out the window when I see 30FSP and yet I see the green neon runways (unable to load textures) and there is no tweaking that I have not tried to get rid of that unacceptable nuisance.So for my health, I am enjoying simming in FS9. but sometime If I feel like working under the hood or If I want some tension in life, I go back to FSX.Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Len, you hit the nail on the head. There are pieces of things in FSX that is extraordinary. The obvious water, the bloom, high resolution photo sceneries. But put it all together the FS9 with all the addons we have a "winning combination"If I add Ultimate Terrain, AI at 80%, Addon airport (the few we have) high water, to make FSX look good, the FPS drops to single digit and blurries. There is no winning combination I have found in FSX.Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Just as a reminder.....next week is SEPT and I've had problems since last OCTOBER and so far the fixes are far from over!Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I've been using FSX since the day it came out. I've used>every version of FS for the past 14 years or so. I'm still>amazed as to how long FS2004 is "hanging on". I don't remember>this slow a transition to a new FS EVER! I know many have>issues with FSX's frames and demands, but honestly, I wouldn't>go back for anything. The scenery, the flight dynamics, the>traffic, and the overall experience with FSX, for me, is a>beauty to behold. Yes, I've had tweaking and various problems,>but with many on this forum and others, we work together to>move into the future of flight simulation. We HAVE to! We can>never get to "as real as it gets" unless we all work together.>But who am I to say? If 2004 rocks your boat, then continue>with it. I've just never seen such a reluctance to get to the>next level. I would love to have the power of so many simmers>who are still on the FS2004 bandwagon working with us to make>the new FSX better. >>Again, I'm not judging anyone, but I am truly amazed!>> I think FS9 is good for five more years, easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,Staying with FS2004 for me has been due to the amount of things I have created for FS9 that aren't compatible with FSX. All of my classic scenery is not compatible (mostly excludes and untextured objects), and neither are my AI aircraft (again, untextured objects).There is nothing in FSX that makes me want to go back through my many sceneries and dozens of AI MDL files just so I can have what I already have in FS9 (with a worse frame rate). And this is the first time this has ever happened to me (simming since FS5.1). So this is indeed a very different situation for me, vs the past.--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Internet is powerful, a product can quickly get a reputation that is very hard to shake off. When FSX was released most had older PC's and were very happy with FS9 and add-ons.They purchased FSX and it was in contrast ....terrible.Single digit frame rates, extremely blurred textures, etc. Everyone jumped on AVsim and started to talk it down and down, many FS9ers never purchased it to this day. FS9 with addons is a very solid sim on its own.Now with newer PCs, FSX is amazing. It taxes a system with complex planes, but can be very enjoyable if 18-25 fps works for you, it does for me.It's similar to Vista that many call ME II, despite with a bit of effort it's a nice modern OS.I like FSX, but looking daily at the file library its just not catching on, I hope it does soon too. MS needs to get people talking positive about it, maybe release a bunch of free miltary planes, more detailed scenery, something to add some interest.I don't think the upcoming plane racing will do much, it seems a very limited number of people that appeals too.Hopefully the DX10 update will make it more attention grabbing.Or this could be the last FS for some time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Microsoft seemed to think FS9 was a dead horse. They were obviously wrong."What's the betting the same will be said of XP ;)Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must have one whale of a system that possibly the rest of us don't know about if you get "18-25 fps" out of KJFK over Manhattan with sliders up to the point that you can enjoy all that FSX has to offer. (I know you didn't say that, so please forgive me). I get the same results you do away from such locations with all sliders maxed out.I think I have a reasonable system to run FSX. FS9 runs away with it in a way I never new existed, but FSX is another animal.FSX does show promise, is useable, is better in many ways, but still has a great deal of liability more so than any of its ancestors to date.Many have said that MSFS is an every other version product realtive to desirability. I never bought into this before, but the term used by one party is "leapfrog". I am not sure but what this is the case with FSX, but am still hopeing. I have had every version going back to the 5" floppies.Hopefully in a few weeks or months, all of this dialogue will be academic. I sure hope so.Respectfully:RTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I was using FS9 and FSX 50 : 50 But post SP1, I am using FSX>less and less. The tension and blood pressure I get when I see>blurries, I can't stand it. No SP1, no blurries, no cartoon autogen.... :-hah I still use both sims, when I use them; but FSX gets used more often, as I'm into flying over elevated topography areas (mountains), rather than simming as a commercial airline pilot. I'm very content with my SF260, FS Genesis, and much clearer texture tiles.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With so many gorgeous aircraft and scenery in FS9, both freeware and payware, it is not worth my time waiting for FSX to get up to speed! Sure I spend some fun time with FSX, but I am always waiting to get back to FS9 and have some serious flying. I think it will be a long time before simmers even think about removing FS9 from their hard drives.Airbus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this